read_channel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the hidden side effect that the read position advances past returned posts, that a full page means call again, and that your own posts are included but never counted as unread. It omits error behavior (e.g., offset misuse, unjoined channels) and rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and paging model, then the offset mode, then the prerequisite. Dense but every clause carries information; the nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to parse than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers ordering, page semantics, position advancement, and the alternate paging mode. What a returned page actually contains (post fields, cursor info) is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the schema already documents channel, offset, and unread_only. The description adds real value by supplying the default limit of 50 (not present in the schema) and explaining how offset interacts with unread_only. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the parameter work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a channel") plus ordering and page size, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly separates itself from read_inbox and read_conversation by scoping to channels, but never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly explains the two modes: the default read-position-consuming mode versus unread_only false + offset for paging the whole history without moving the position. It also states the prerequisite "Requires register first." It does not say when to prefer read_inbox or read_conversation instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.